Ofulue & Anor v Bossert

Ofulue & Anor v Bossert

The court must follow the Grand Chamber decision in Pye v United Kingdom, which held that the law of adverse possession as applied in England and Wales is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Bosserts’ mistaken belief in tenancy did not preclude the requisite intention for adverse possession. The pleadings and without prejudice offer letters did not constitute effective acknowledgments of title to stop time running under the Limitation Act 1980. The Bosserts acquired the property by adverse possession and the Ofulues’ appeal fails.

Parties
Appellant: Emmanuel Ofulue; Appellant: Agnes Ofulue; Respondent: Erica Bossert
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Acknowledgment of Title, Without Prejudice Rule, European Convention on Human Rights, Land Registration
Land Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Limitation of Actions Acknowledgment of Title Without Prejudice Rule European Convention on Human Rights +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emmanuel Ofulue

Appellant

Agnes Ofulue

Appellant

Erica Bossert

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should follow Pye v United Kingdom regarding adverse possession and the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the Bosserts' claim to be tenants prevented them from having the necessary intention for adverse possession
  3. 3 Whether there was an acknowledgment of the Ofulues’ title sufficient to stop time running under the Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

The court must follow the Grand Chamber decision in Pye v United Kingdom, which held that the law of adverse possession as applied in England and Wales is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Bosserts’ mistaken belief in tenancy did not preclude the requisite intention for adverse possession. The pleadings and without prejudice offer letters did not constitute effective acknowledgments of title to stop time running under the Limitation Act 1980. The Bosserts acquired the property by adverse possession and the Ofulues’ appeal fails.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The respondent’s notice is allowed in part.